Is FCPS ending advance math for students who are not in AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Let's say there are 6 classes per grade and they switch for ELA and math. That provides 6 levels right there for each. You could do small groups for the kids who need further differentiation.

What about the schools that have 2-3 classes per grade level?

Exactly. This is common at many FCPS schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again - forgot to mention that if there had simply been flexible groupings, he would have benefitted far more from being in the advanced language arts group than this exercise in wasted time.

I don’t think your example has anything to do with flexible groupings I think it has to do with the person that runs the flexible groupings did not do a good job. But your son was in fact, pulled out for a flexible grouping based on his skills.

No, you are not correct. This wasn't a "flexible grouping" type of situation. It was a very specific, once a week "Socratic Seminar" for selected students. Not an advanced language arts grouping that would have been held every day. That was the point, which I bolded.

I’m the PP. You said it was a Socratic seminar activity, and that they completed worksheets. Did they not do a Socratic seminar? If not, then that’s the fault of the teacher..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People mix up the word equity vs equality. Equity means everyone gets their needs met whether they are advanced or below. Getting rid of advanced classes is not equitable. Current Gen Ed classes aren’t equitable either.
The problem with Gen Ed lays with the high needs of ESL and SPED students with the lack of staffing. . .

Correct. Equity is based on the theory of “from each according to his ability, to each according to their needs,” so everyone will be equal in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

Many minority in AAP, just not the URM.

Fairfax has equity policy. It magic thinking.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/topics/one-fairfax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People mix up the word equity vs equality. Equity means everyone gets their needs met whether they are advanced or below. Getting rid of advanced classes is not equitable. Current Gen Ed classes aren’t equitable either.
The problem with Gen Ed lays with the high needs of ESL and SPED students with the lack of staffing. . .

Correct. Equity is based on the theory of “from each according to his ability, to each according to their needs,” so everyone will be equal in the end.

How is your search for private schools going?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again - forgot to mention that if there had simply been flexible groupings, he would have benefitted far more from being in the advanced language arts group than this exercise in wasted time.

I don’t think your example has anything to do with flexible groupings I think it has to do with the person that runs the flexible groupings did not do a good job. But your son was in fact, pulled out for a flexible grouping based on his skills.

No, you are not correct. This wasn't a "flexible grouping" type of situation. It was a very specific, once a week "Socratic Seminar" for selected students. Not an advanced language arts grouping that would have been held every day. That was the point, which I bolded.

I’m the PP. You said it was a Socratic seminar activity, and that they completed worksheets. Did they not do a Socratic seminar? If not, then that’s the fault of the teacher..

Yes, it was a Socratic seminar activity and yes, they completed worksheets. The point was that it was a wasted half hour of busy work when he would have been a lot better off back in the classroom doing the work he wound up having to make up - OR being in an advanced level language arts group (which this was not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

This makes no sense at all. What is splitting kids into AAP / Gen Ed if not tracking on a huge scale??

[Anonymous]

Why are we even talking about flexible groups! Is this something FCPS has a plan for? This thread is about advanced math and the possible removal of accelerated options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

Thanks for demonstrating that you are full of crap.

Here is the strategic plan - very focused on learning and improving academics.
https://www.fcps.edu/strategic-plan

Goal #1 - Strong Start: PreK-12

Every student will develop foundational academic skills, curiosity, and a joy for learning necessary for success in Pre-K through 12th grade.

Equity Commitment

We will ensure authentic and affirming partnerships with families and key stakeholders by engaging in collaborative decision making that results in each student’s success.

Measures

A. Availability of Pre-K programs (including inclusive Pre-K) to meet community need
B. Students meeting criteria for kindergarten readiness
C. Students demonstrating self-regulation attention skills (Pre-K–3, and beyond)
D. English Language Learners meeting expected growth and reclassification criteria
E. Early and consistent access to and preparation for advanced instruction and enrichment opportunities
F. Students meeting standards at defined entry and transition points

Goal #2 - Safe, Supported, Included, and Empowered

Every student will experience an equitable school community where student health and well-being are prioritized, and student voice is centered.

Equity Commitment

We will amplify student voice to inform our approaches, honor students' identities and experiences, and ensure student safety and well-being in an inclusive school climate and culture.

Measures

A. Student academic inclusion and engagement
B. Positive school climate (safety, inclusion, and sense of belonging; academic support; inclusive, academically-focused culture; and teacher-student trust)
C. Student access to the necessary emotional, behavioral, mental, and physical health services to support their
successful engagement in school
D. Student attendance and absenteeism rates
E. Student participation in extracurricular, co-curricular, or leadership activities
F. Disciplinary disproportionality and recidivism

Goal #3 - Academic Growth and Excellence

Every student will acquire critical and creative thinking skills, meet/exceed high academic standards, and achieve their highest academic potential.

Equity Commitment

We will utilize available evidence to provide access to challenging academic programs and necessary supports that celebrate each student’s humanity, growth, and attainment of high levels of academic performance.

Measures

A. Growth and performance in coursework (e.g., course grades, grade point average [GPA], meeting Individualized Education Program [IEP] goals, and language acquisition goals) (including students with 504s)
B. Growth and performance on state/national/international assessments in reading, math, social studies, and science
C. Successful completion of Algebra 1 by 8th grade
D. Evidence of progression towards or successful completion of advanced coursework (e.g., Honors, Advanced Placement [AP], International Baccalaureate [IB], dual enrollment, Career and Technical Education [CTE], etc.)
E. Growth with evidence in at least one/two self-identified Portrait of a Graduate skills, annually
F. Students reading on grade level by the end of 3rd grade

Goal #4 - Equitable Access and Opportunity

Every student will have access to high-quality academic programming and resources to support their success.

Equity Commitment

We will prioritize data that describes student outcomes and lived experiences, to allocate resources and supports that are responsive to each student’s strengths and needs.

Measures

A. Availability of, accessibility to, and student enrollment in coursework in the arts, STEAM, career and technical education, trades, technology, and world languages
B. Availability of and enrollment in advanced, rigorous coursework and programs (K-12)
C. Student access to and participation in formalized systems of early intervention, academic and other supports, including special education services and services for English learners
D. Disproportionality in course-taking patterns and participation in inclusive settings
E. Consistent availability of and accessibility to electives, extracurricular, co-curricular, and enrichment activities
Goal 5 - Leading for Tomorrow's Innovation

Every student will graduate ready to thrive in life after high school and with the skills to navigate, adapt, and innovate for a sustainable future.

Equity Commitment

We will center student voice data and use evidence to ensure each student is ready to make informed decisions, prepared for a wide range of postsecondary options, and can successfully navigate their future path.

Measures

A. Availability of, accessibility to, and participation in multiple pathways and work-based learning opportunities (e.g., shadowing; internship; apprenticeship; and Career and Technical Education)
B. Attainment of FCPS Portrait of a Graduate competencies and digital and financial literacy
C. Supported and successful transitions leading to high school graduation and postsecondary opportunities
D. Students on track for graduation at the end of 9th grade
E. Increase in the percentage of students earning an advanced studies diploma
F. Reduction of the percentage of students earning an applied studies diploma
G. Enrollment in college, entry into the workforce or public service, enlistment in military, or other, verifiable post-secondary plan
H. Students innovating and preparing for the future


*****

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.